Classroom Management Has Increasingly Become

Classroom management has increasingly become one of the more challenging tasks for educators at almost every level. In its base form, it is the process of ensuring that the classroom lessons run smoothly and that learning is accomplished with a minimum of interruptions. Research abounds as to the importance of classroom management in the contemporary school, as well as the frustration many teachers feel in an increasingly litigious environment in which their every disciplinary action is scrutinized and criticized. In fact, the U.S. National Educational Association noted that almost 40% of teachers surveyed said that given the choice, they would probably not go into teaching again because of "negative student attitudes and discipline" and their lack of freedom in managing their class (Schneider).

There are several reasons that teachers no longer feel in control of their own class. Corporal punishment is no longer fashionable, or tolerated; society has changed to being pro-teacher authority to pro-student rights, and parents are increasingly distant and unwilling to support teachers who expect good behavior during the school day. We can break down some of the more interesting challenges to effective classroom management using a legalistic approach and a moral/ethical approach.

Legal -- What would a teacher do if students came to school wearing something that signaled a protest to the war in Afghanistan, or a T-Shirt with an anti-governmental picture or slogan? Would the teacher refer the matter to the administration for decision and would the administration then react based on what the "thought" might happen? In fact, does a prohibition against the wearing of a clothing item as a form of symbolic protest violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech?

In fact, this very thing happened in 1965 and early 1966 in the Des Moines Independent Community School District.: John and Mary Beth Tinker, 15 and 13 years of age, and Christopher Eckhardt, 16 years old, decided to emulate their parents in protest of the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school during the Christmas season. Upon learning of their intent, the administration resolved that all students wearing any armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinkers and Eckhardt refused to remove them they were suspended until after the New Year's Holiday. These events occurred in December 1965 and January 1966, but a suit was not filed until the Iowa Civil Liberties Union approached the family to aid in legal matters. Their parents filed a suit in U.S. District Court which upheld the School's decision, and a tie vote in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals forced the decision to stand, resulting in the Tinkers and Eckhardts appeal directly to the Supreme Court. Des Moines argued that school officials had the right to enforce rules and regulations within the structure of the school that were designed to keep order and in line with other rules for the school grounds. Tinker's side, in turn, argued that the First Amendment applies to public schools, and that in order to ban such freedom of expression, the school would need to factually demonstrate that the behavior was indeed disruptive to the school environment.

In a 7 to 2 vote the Court ruled that the wearing of armbands was "closely akin to pure speech" and indeed protected by the Constitution. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but in this case the administration lacked justification for imposing such limits since their reasoning was a hypothetical future event, not something correcting or occurring. The District also failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline or activities (Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District).

There have been a number of similar incidents since Tinker in which the teacher or administration believes that students should not wear certain items, and that those items cause undue disruption in the class. Now, though we have No Child Left Behind and standardized testing that requires educators to be accountable for a certain level of instruction within the classroom -- how can this happen if students are wearing pornographic or offensive clothing, or clothing and/or messages that upset other students? Tinker certainly set the bar for Constitutional rights, but one must also ask, what about the right to an education faced by other students in the classroom? (Moser). Increasingly, Courts are understanding that clothing that depicts sexual acts, coarse language, bodily fluids, or offense and bigoted messages disallows an appropriate educational experience. One response to this is a school dress code at one end of the spectrum, and school uniforms at the other. One can debate the efficacy of these provisions, but the basic difference is that the Tinker case was classified as a non-offensive protest (a black armband) as a Constintutional right, but blatantly offensive images or clothing that hinders learning, is unproductive and schools have a clear right to regulate that behavior (State Court and Lower Federal Court Decisions).

Moral/Ethical- By the time we reach school age we have a basic understanding that there are often consequences for our actions. Within the model of classroom management there are various ways a teacher can model behavior, modify student's behavior, and change the manner in which that student views themselves and the world. Numerous examples of this are using intimidation and sarcasm to correct a student -- embarassing them in front of their peers; refusing to call on excited students who continually raise their hands, demeaning oral reading or answers with comments designed to hurt emotionally, and causing disciplinary headaches for no reason other than control (e.g. setting a student up for failure). Of course, these are extreme examples, and focus on attribution theory in the classroom, but they are certainly ways of controlling behavior, albeit causing other behaviors perhaps just as unwanted (Foote).

Instead, though, why not use this same theory in a motivational manner to ensure success and prevent poor behavior before it starts. Certainly, there are times when children may need a "time out," or if particularly disruptive, consequences such as taking play time away if there is too much talking, etc. But studies have clearly shown that by emphasizing the positive; "You put a lot of work into this," "Thank you for sitting quietly," "Yes, that's right, what else could you think of," etc. one has a far better chance of modifying and rewarding positive behavior rather than punishing bad behavior. In fact, studies even as far back as the 1960s show that a teacher can increase good behavior and creativity within the classroom simply by patterning positive and respectful behavior (Torrance).